"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to
that. But there are others that would complain because offshore fishing
is what they do for recreation and they probably have a lot invested in
it.




Let them complain.

And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to excess. The
Govenator's new universal health plan for children in California is to be
paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it is a good thing to have
cheap universal insurance, then let everyone pay for it.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22. Smoking is
declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten the decline as will
the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to
that. But there are others that would complain because offshore fishing
is what they do for recreation and they probably have a lot invested in
it.




Let them complain.

And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to excess.
The Govenator's new universal health plan for children in California is
to be paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it is a good thing to
have cheap universal insurance, then let everyone pay for it.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22. Smoking
is declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten the decline as
will the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch


Boaters. :)

Eisboch wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to
that. But there are others that would complain because offshore fishing
is what they do for recreation and they probably have a lot invested in
it.



Let them complain.
And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to excess. The
Govenator's new universal health plan for children in California is to be
paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it is a good thing to have
cheap universal insurance, then let everyone pay for it.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22. Smoking is
declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten the decline as will
the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch



The benefit of the tabacco tax is it will encourage smokers to quit. We
all pay for the increased health cost related to smoking.

I am sure there are some who would prefer that all rec. boating be
outlawed as it is waste of limited resources. I guess we can all buy
sailboats w/o a iron gennie.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than,
say, 40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close
to that. But there are others that would complain because offshore
fishing is what they do for recreation and they probably have a lot
invested in it.



Let them complain.
And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to
excess. The Govenator's new universal health plan for children in
California is to be paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it
is a good thing to have cheap universal insurance, then let everyone
pay for it.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22.
Smoking is declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten
the decline as will the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch


The benefit of the tabacco tax is it will encourage smokers to quit. We
all pay for the increased health cost related to smoking.

I don't see the correlation between smoking and health costs? I quite
smoking when I was 40, after 29 years of two to three, packs a day. I
was sick usually two days a year, never saw a doctor unless a bone was
broken. Then after I quit smoking I fell apart. Back, neck, foot, and
many other things.

I am sure there are some who would prefer that all rec. boating be
outlawed as it is waste of limited resources. I guess we can all buy
sailboats w/o a iron gennie.

If they can penalize half of the boaters now it will be easier to
penalize all of the boaters later. Once the camel gets its nose under
the tent its body soon follows.

BAR wrote:


The benefit of the tabacco tax is it will encourage smokers to quit.
We all pay for the increased health cost related to smoking.

I don't see the correlation between smoking and health costs? I quite
smoking when I was 40, after 29 years of two to three, packs a day. I
was sick usually two days a year, never saw a doctor unless a bone was
broken. Then after I quit smoking I fell apart. Back, neck, foot, and
many other things.

Statistically, there is a very strong direct correlation between smoking
and health cost, just as their is a strong correlation between obesity
and health costs. It does not mean that all smokers and/or obese people
have higher health cost, but these two factors have a major impact on
the cost to society and health insurance, which we all pay for.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
BAR wrote:


The benefit of the tabacco tax is it will encourage smokers to quit.
We all pay for the increased health cost related to smoking.

I don't see the correlation between smoking and health costs? I quite
smoking when I was 40, after 29 years of two to three, packs a day. I
was sick usually two days a year, never saw a doctor unless a bone was
broken. Then after I quit smoking I fell apart. Back, neck, foot, and
many other things.

Statistically, there is a very strong direct correlation between smoking
and health cost, just as their is a strong correlation between obesity
and health costs. It does not mean that all smokers and/or obese people
have higher health cost, but these two factors have a major impact on
the cost to society and health insurance, which we all pay for.


Let's see...

He quit at 40, after smoking for 29 years.

40-29=11.

He started smoking at 11.

That pretty much says it all.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:11:22 -0500, BAR wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than,
say, 40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close
to that. But there are others that would complain because offshore
fishing is what they do for recreation and they probably have a lot
invested in it.



Let them complain.
And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to
excess. The Govenator's new universal health plan for children in
California is to be paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it
is a good thing to have cheap universal insurance, then let everyone
pay for it.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22.
Smoking is declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten
the decline as will the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch


The benefit of the tabacco tax is it will encourage smokers to quit. We
all pay for the increased health cost related to smoking.

I don't see the correlation between smoking and health costs? I quite
smoking when I was 40, after 29 years of two to three, packs a day. I
was sick usually two days a year, never saw a doctor unless a bone was
broken. Then after I quit smoking I fell apart. Back, neck, foot, and
many other things.

I am sure there are some who would prefer that all rec. boating be
outlawed as it is waste of limited resources. I guess we can all buy
sailboats w/o a iron gennie.

If they can penalize half of the boaters now it will be easier to
penalize all of the boaters later. Once the camel gets its nose under
the tent its body soon follows.

You were lucky as a smoker. After two bouts of pneumonia and a diagnosis of
emphysema, I finally got smart enough to quit. Haven't had pneumonia since,
and the emphysema hasn't gotten any worse. Of course, the cholesterol and
blood sugar are both higher, but there has to be some bad with the good.

Golf, if walking, is good for cholesterol and blood sugar problems, BTW.

Another BTW - I've a brother coming up from NC and another flying in from
Seattle this evening. We're planning five days of mid-November golf, and I
think we lucked out in the weather department!

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to
that. But there are others that would complain because offshore
fishing is what they do for recreation and they probably have a lot
invested in it.



Let them complain.
And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to excess.
The Govenator's new universal health plan for children in California is
to be paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it is a good thing
to have cheap universal insurance, then let everyone pay for it.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22. Smoking
is declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten the decline
as will the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch

The benefit of the tabacco tax is it will encourage smokers to quit. We
all pay for the increased health cost related to smoking.

I am sure there are some who would prefer that all rec. boating be
outlawed as it is waste of limited resources. I guess we can all buy
sailboats w/o a iron gennie.


There are a bunch of studies which disprove the increased lifetime health
costs with smokers. The taxes that are collected exceed societies cost to
take care of the person and on average they die sooner. Something like 80%
of a persons health costs are in the last 2 years of life. And the smoker
dies before all the small **** adds up. Raise the health insurance for a
smoker. Actually they do lots of times. There should be freedom of choice.
Where is a Twinkie Tax? A fatburger tax? All these are also unhealthy.
Maybe we need 1984 or the government that would generate "Escape from LA"
scenarios.

wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:39:04 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

The benefit of the tabacco tax is it will encourage smokers to quit. We
all pay for the increased health cost related to smoking.

The problem with tobacco taxes is they are terribly regressive. As a
general rule, smokers tend to be in the lower economic classes. That
is why I find it strange that liberals like to oppress these poor drug
addicts. Using this logic, maybe they should legalize pot and the
white powders, then tax the hell out of them too.
Maybe we could save social security after all.


Now you guys are getting into areas other than ways to shove a bit of
fuel conservation down the throats of Americans.

You want to reform the tax codes? Exempt the poor, however that is
defined, and then tax *all* income from, say, $50,000 to $100,000 at
10%, all income above that to $250,000 at 15%, all income above that to
$500,000 at 20%, all income above that to $1,000,000 at 25%, and any
income above $1,000,000 at 49%.

No deductions. No shifting of money coming in to other categories so it
isn't considered income.

Oh, and supervised bookkeeping for corporations. No funny business with
the books. And income tax on corporate profits, too.

Every entity pays.

Churches, too.

No more free ride, unless your earnings are under a certain level.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:

You want to reform the tax codes? Exempt the poor, however that is
defined, and then tax *all* income from, say, $50,000 to $100,000 at 10%,
all income above that to $250,000 at 15%, all income above that to
$500,000 at 20%, all income above that to $1,000,000 at 25%, and any
income above $1,000,000 at 49%.

No deductions. No shifting of money coming in to other categories so it
isn't considered income.

Oh, and supervised bookkeeping for corporations. No funny business with
the books. And income tax on corporate profits, too.

Every entity pays.

Churches, too.


Not bad. I'd probably support that.

I have a general question though. Why the stepped increases for higher
incomes?
The person/family making 100k in your plan pays 10k in taxes. A
person/family making 250k pays over three times the taxes (32.5k) but only
earned 2.5 times as much. Just curious as to your reasoning.

Eisboch